Body&Soul Assistance, Admin.

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. There was a detailed assessment in place. However, the provider had not transferred this information into accessible care plans for people. This meant people were at significant risk of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care as staff did not have appropriate detailed guidance to follow.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care and treatment was not delivered in line with current legislation or best practice.

There were no provider led care plans which meant people’s changing health, risk management or emotional needs were not reflected in any plans of care. The only care documentation in place was an assessment completed by an external health care professional. We could not assess how staff measured the impact of care interventions to ensure they were aligned with evidence-based practice. For example, people who were at a high risk of skin breakdown lacked personalised skin management, monitoring or preventative care plans. Where people were losing weight there was no evidence of monitoring or action taken. Clinical training for staff was undertaken by the provider, and we did not see any evidence of support from healthcare professionals.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people.

Some partners indicated communication could improve to facilitate continuity of care and the quality of the service. Staff described good teamwork and said communication was good. However, staff confirmed they did not work with external professionals.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The lack of care plans meant we found no evidence staff had access to up to date information. There was no reliable system for sharing health updates with care staff, which meant we were not assured they received up to date information to meet people’s needs safely. There was limited evidence to demonstrate how external clinical input was incorporated into people’s care. The provider could not demonstrate staff had completed sufficient training to ensure they had the appropriate knowledge and skills to recognise and identify health concerns. Documentation was poor. For example, 1 person was prescribed antibiotics for an infection, and the medication was discontinued after 1 day by the person. There was no evidence of follow up action to contact healthcare professionals.

However, people told us staff supported their health needs well, which had resulted in no hospital admissions being required for several years.

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The person’s initial assessment highlighted monitoring should be in place in areas such as skin integrity, catheter care and medicines. Records were basic and there were no monitoring tools in place. There was no documented monitoring of skin integrity or medicines. One person was at high risk of a potentially life-threatening condition if not identified and prompt action taken. The provider’s documented guidance was not specific to the person and was dated 2004. Where monitoring was in place this was basic and there was no evidence to support how this was reviewed by the provider.

Staff did not demonstrate an understanding about the importance of monitoring people’s care. However, they were following the provider’s verbal instructions and guidance. There was no evidence to demonstrate how the provider reviewed information to identify trends or changes in people’s outcomes. This meant we could not be assured monitoring activities were used effectively to understand whether care was improving, remaining stable or declining.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Processes were in place to assess people’s capacity. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and promoted people’s choice and control. They routinely asked for consent and actively listened to people’s wishes. People confirmed staff respected their wishes and provided person-centred care.